•  .  SPEECH 

.  • 

I 

OF 

SENATOR  DOUGLAS, 

OF  ILLINOIS, 

ON  THE 

* 

NATAL  APPROPRIATION  BILL 

DELIVERED  IN 

V 

THE  SENATE  OF  THE  UNITED  STATES, 

JUNE  1,  1  8  58. 


WASHINGTON: 

PRINTED  BY  LEMUEL  TOWERS. 

•  1858. 


SPEECH 


OF 

SENATOR  DOUGLAS,  OE  ILLINOIS, 

OH  THE 

NAVAL  APPROPRIATION  BILL. 

a  . 


DELIVERED  IN  THE  SENATE  OF  THE  UNITED  STATES,  JUNE  7,  1858. 


The  Senate  having  under  consideration  the  Naval  Appropriation  bill — Mr. 
DOUGLAS  said: 

I  agree,  Mr.  President,  with  most  that  has  been  said  by  my  friend 
from  Georgia,  (Mr.  Toombs,)  and  especially,  that  we  ought  to  deter¬ 
mine  what  we  are  to  do  in  reference  to  the  outrages  upon  our  flag  in 
the  Gulf  of  Mexico  and  the  West  Indies,  before  we  decide  the  amount 
of  money  we  shall  vote  for  war  purposes.  If  we  are  going  to  content 
ourselves  with  simple  resolutions  that  we  will  not  submit  to  that  which 
we  have  resolved  for  half  a  century,  should  never  be  repeated,  I  see  no 
use  in  additional  appropriations  for  navy  or  for  army.  If  we  are  going 
to  be  contented  with  loud  sounding  speeches,  with  defiances  to  the 
British  lion,  with  resolutions  of  the  Senate  alone,  not  concurred  in  by 
the  other  House,  conferring  no  power  on  the  Executive — merely  capital 
for  the  country,  giving  no  power  to  the  Executive  to  avenge  insults  or 
prevent  their  repetition,  what  is  the  use  of  voting  money  ?  I  find  that 
patriotic  gentlemen  are  ready  to  talk  loud,  resolve  strong ;  but  are  they 
willing  to  appropriate  the  money  ?  Are  they  willing  to  confer  on  the 
Executive,  power  to  repel  these  insults,  and  to  avenge  them  whenever 
they  may  be  perpetrated  ?  Let  us  know  whether  we  are  to  submit 
and  protest,  or  whether  we  are  to  authorize  the  President  to  resist  and 
to  prevent  the  repetition  of  these  offences.  If  Senators  are  prepared 
to  vote  for  a  law  reviving  the  act  of  1839,  putting  the  army,  the 
navy,  volunteers,  and  money  at  the  disposal  of  the  President  to  pre¬ 
vent  the  repetition  of  these  acts,  and  to  punish  them,  if  repeated, 
then  I  am  ready  to  give  the  ships  and  the  money,  but  I  desire  to  know 
whether  we  are  to  submit  to  these  insults  with  a  simple  protest,  or 
whether  we  are  to  repel  them. 

Gentlemen  ask  us  to  vote  ships  and  money,  and  they  talk  to  us 
about  the  necessity  of  a  ship  in  China,  and  about  outrages  in  Tampico, 
and  disturbances  in  South  America,  and  Indian  difficulties  in  Pugets 
Sound.  Every  enemy  that  can  be  found  on  the  face  of  the  earth  is 
defied  except  the  one  that  defies  us.  Bring  in  a  proposition  here  to 
invest  the  President  with  power  to  repel  British  aggressions  on  Amen- 


4 


can  ships,  and  what  is  the  response?  High  sounding  resolutions  de¬ 
claring  in  effect,  if  not  in  terms,  that,  whereas,  Great  Britain  has  per¬ 
petrated  outrages  on  our  flag  and  our  shipping,  which  are  intolerable, 
and  insufferable,  and  must  not  be  repeated,  therefore,  if  she  does  so 
again,  we  will  whip  Mexico,  or  we  will  pounce  down  upon  Nicaragua, 
or  we  will  get  up  a  fight  with  Costa  Rica,  or  we  will  chastise  New 
Grenada,  or  we  will  punish  the  Chinese,  or  we  will  repel  the  Indians 
from  Pugets  Sound,  [laughter,]  but  not  a  word  about  Great  Britain ! 
What  I  desire  to  know  is,  whether  we  are  to  meet  this  issue  with  Great 
Britain?  I  am  told  we  shall  do  it  when  we  are  prepared.  Sir,  when  will 
you  be  prepared  to  repel  an  insult  unless  when  it  is  given  ?  England 
has  her  ships  of  war,  of  various  sizes,  searching  our  vessels,  firing  across 
their  bows,  firing  into  their  rigging,  subjecting  them  to  search  not  only 
in  the  Gulf  of  Mexico,  but  in  the  Caribbean  sea,  and  upon  the  Atlantic. 
It  is  not  confined  to  one  captain,  or  one  vessel,  or  one  locality,  but  the  out¬ 
rages  are  committed  by  various  ships,  by  the  Styx  on  the  coast  of  Cuba, 
by  the  Forward  five  hundred  miles  east  of  there,  by  the  Buzzard  a  thous¬ 
and  miles  from  Cuba.,  Every  arrival  at  our  ports  brings  us  information  of 
the  repetition  of  these  offences,  clearly  demonstrating  the  fact  that  they 
are  not  accidental.  They  are  not  confined  to  one  locality ;  they  are 
not  the  acts  of  one  ship  or  of  one  officer  ;  they  are  the  result  of  orders 
from  Great  Britain  to  execute  this  system  of  outrages  on  the  American 
flag  and  American  commerce.  Are  we  to  submit  to  it  ?  If  so,  let  us 
not  say  another  word  about  it,  pass  no  resolutions,  make  no  speeches, 
vote  no  extra  appropriations  that  we  would  not  vote  if  these  things  had 
not  occurred.  If,  on  the  contrary,  we  are  not  going  to  submit  to  them, 
why  not  act  as  we  did  on  the  northeastern  boundary  question  in  1839. 
When  the  news  arrived  here  on  the  2d  of  March,  1839,  that  an  Ameri¬ 
can  citizen  had  been  taken  prisoner  on  the  disputed  boundary  of  Maine, 
showing  a  disposition  on  the  part  of  Great  Britain  to  insist  on  her 
claim  to  the  exclusive  possession  of  that  country,  instantly  the  Senate, 
by  a  unanimous  vote,  passed  a  bill  authorizing  the  President  to  repel 
any  attempt  on  the  part  of  Great  Britain  to  enforce  that  claim,  and  for 
that  purpose,  putting  at  his  disposal,  the  army,  the  navy,  the  militia, 
fifty  thousand  volunteers,  and  ten  millions  of  money,  to  enable  him  to 
execute  the  will  of  the  nation  in  that  respect.  Now,  sir,  why  not  re¬ 
vive  that  act,  striking  out  “  the  disputed  boundary,”  and  inserting  “  her 
claims  to  the  right  of  visitation  and  search,”  and  then  every  provision 
of  that  bill  would  be  applicable  to  the  present  case.  My  friend  from 
Missouri,  (Mr.  Green,)  calls  my  attention  to  the  vote  of  the  House  of 
Representatives  on  that  occasion.  It  stood  one  hundred  and  ninety- 
seven  in  the  affirmative,  and  six  in  the  negative.  The  vote  in  the 
Senate  was  forty-one  in  the  affirmative,  none  in  the  negative. 

Your  Clays,  your  Calhouns,  your  Websters,  the  great  men  of  former 
times  were  here  then — men  differing  in  politics  in  times  of  high  party 
strife,  at  a  period  when  Mr.  Van  Buren  was  President,  and  Clay,  Web¬ 
ster,  and  Calhoun  led  the  opposition.  Still  the  moment  this  outrage  was 
perpetrated  by  Great  Britain  upon  our  rights,  all  party  dissensions 
were  hushed,  the  opposition  and  the  Administration  stood  as  one  man 
■when  the  honor  of  the  nation  was  assaulted.  They  did  not  hesitate  to 


5 


confer  upon  Mr.  Van  Buren  the  power  to  resist  the  outrages  committed 
by  Great  Britain  in  case  they  should  be  persevered  in.  Why  not  now 
revive  the  same  law  which  was  then  passed  by  a  unanimous  vote  in 
the  Senate,  and  with  only  six  dissenting  voices  in  the  other  House,  and 
confer  upon  President  Buchanan  the  same  power  and  authority  which 
was  then  conferred  upon  President  Van  Buren,  on  the  motion  of  Mr. 
Senator  Buchanan.  Do  that,  and  then  I  am  prepared  to  vote  the 
ships,  the  money,  the  men,  anything,  everything  necessary  to  vindicate 
our  firm  resolve.  Yes,  sir,  I  will  go  further,  I  will  vote  the  ships  and 
the  money  even  now,  trusting  that  Congress  before  it  adjourns  will 
arm  the  President  with  the  necessary  power  and  authority  to  prevent 
a  repetition  of  these  aggressions.  I  am,  however,  extremely  unwilling 
to  bury  up  the  outrages  of  Great  Britain,  under  all  the  talk  and  noise 
that  is  made  about  the  injuries  perpetrated  by  the  South  American 
Republics.  I  know  that  in  South  America  outrages  have  been  perpe¬ 
trated  on  our  commerce,  on  our  citizens  and  their  property,  which 
ought  to  have  been  punished  on  the  spot.  I  know  they  are  continuing, 
and  will  continue  from  day  to  day,  and  year  to  year,  until  you  clothe 
the  Executive  with  the  authority  to  punish  them  as  promptly  as  the 
British  Government  punish  similar  outrages  on  their  commerce,  and 
their  rights,  but  these  things  have  been  going  on  in  South  America 
for  years.  They  are  weak,  feeble,  unstable  powers,  entitled  to  our 
sympathy  and  our  contempt  mingled  together.  While  I  would  clothe 
the  Executive  with  power  to  punish  them,  I  would  only  do  it  after  I 
had  avenged  the  insults  perpetrated  by  Great  Britain,  or  I  would  in 
the  same  act  authorize  the 'President  to  avenge  them. 

Sir,  I  tremble  for  the  fame  of  America,  for  her  honor,  and  for  her 
character,  when  we  shall  be  silent  in  regard  to  British  outrages,  and 
avenge  ourselves  by  punishing  the  weaker  powers  instead  of  grappling 
with  the  stronger.  I  never  did  fancy  that  policy,  nor  admire  that 
chivalry  which  induced  a  man  when  insulted  by  a  strong  man  of  his 
own  size,  to  say  that  he  would  whip  the  first  boy  he  found  in  the 
street,  in  order  to  vindicate  his  honor,  or  as  is  suggested  by  a  gentle¬ 
man  behind  me,  that  he  would  go  home  and  whip  his  wife,  [laughter,] 
in  order  to  show  his  courage,  inasmuch  he  was  afraid  to  tackle  the 
full  grown  man  who  had  committed  the  aggression.  Sir,  these  out¬ 
rages  cannot  be  concealed,  they  cannot  have  the  go-by,  we  must  meet 
them  face  to  face.  Now  is  the  time  when  England  must  give  up  her 
claim  to  search  American  vessels,  or  we  must  be  silent  in  our  protests 
and  resolutions  and  valorous  speeches  against  that  claim.  It  will  not 
do  to  raise  a  navy  for  the  Chinese  seas,  nor  for  Pugets  Sound,  nor  for 
Mexico,  nor  for  the  South  American  Republics.  It  may  be  used  for 
those  purposes,  but  England  must  first  be  dealt  with.  Sir,  we  shall  be 
looked  upon  as  showing  the  white  feather,  if  we  strike  a  blow  at  any 
feeble  power  until  these  English  aggressions  and  insults  are  first  punish¬ 
ed,  and  security  is  obtained«lhat  they  are  not  to  be  repeated. 

I  shall  vote  for  the  amendment  offered  by  my  friend  from  Florida, 
under  the  authority  of  the  Committe  on  Naval  Affairs,  providing  for 
ten  sloops  of  war.  I  shall  also  vote  for  the  proposition  of  my  friend 
from  North  Carolina,  for  the  ten  gun  boats.  I  wish  he  had  increased 


\ 


6 


the  number  to  fifty,  because  I  understand  they  can  be  constructed  for 
about  $100,000  apiece,  and  five  millions  of  dollars  would  give  you 
fifty  gun  boats,  vessels  of  a  character  more  serviceable  for  coast  defense 
than  auy  other  vessels  you  could  have.  They  could  enter  every  har¬ 
bor,  every  creek,  every  bay,  every  nook  where  it  is  necessary  to  afford 
protection,  and  each  one  of  them  singly  would  be  strong  enough  in 
time  of  war  to  capture  an  enemy’s  Merchant  vessel  and  bring  it  into 
port,  or  sink  it  as  easily  as  a  seventy-four,  or  the  largest  class  of  ships 
of  vrar.  I  would  increase  the  number  of  gun-boats  to  fifty;  I  would 
give  the  sloops  asked  for  by  the  committee,  but  I  would  never  permit 
this  Congress  to  adjourn,  after  all  the  resolutions  we  have  had  reported, 
and  all  the  brave  speeches  we  have  made,  until  we  give  the  President 
power,  and  thereby  make  it  his  duty,  to  repel  in  future  every  repetition 
of  these  British  outrages  on  our  flag,  and  to  use  the  army,  the  navy, 
the  militia,  and  the  treasury,  to  any  extent  which  may  be  necessary 
for  that  purpose. 

[Pending  the  same  discussion  and  in  reply  to  the  remarks  of  several 
Senators  on  the  same  day,  Mr.  Douglas  again  addressed  the  Senate  as 
follows :] 

Mr.  Douglas.  I  concur  entirely  with  the  Senator  from  Virginia,  in 
the  reasons  he  has  given  for  the  necessity  of  applying  the  provisions  of 
the  bill  which  he  has  reported  from  the  Committee  on  Foreign  Rela¬ 
tions,  as  a  substitute  for  one  I  introduced,  to  Mexico,  Nicaragua,  Costa 
Rica,  and  New  Granada;  but  I  do  not  perceive  the  necessity  of  limit¬ 
ing  the  application  to  those  countries,  and  not  extending  it  beyond 
them.  If  his  objection  be  true,  that  my  proposition  was  to  confer  a 
war  making  power  upon  the  President,  then  by  applying  the  whole 
power  of  these  provisions  to  Mexico,  and  the  other  three  countries,  he 
confers  a  war  making  power  to  that  extent.  I  suppose  if  it  is  a  viola¬ 
tion  of  principle  to  give  the  President  a  war  making  power  as  applied 
to  one  country,  it  is  no  more  so  to  give  it  to  him  generally.  The  ob¬ 
jection  I  had  to  his  provision  was  this:  I  had  introduced  a  bill  to 
authorize  the  President  in  cases  of  flagrant  violations  of  the  law  of 
nations  under  circumstances  admitting  of  no  dela}T,  to  repel  and  punish, 
the  aggression.  The  Senator  from  Virginia,  takes  the  provisions  of  that 
bill  and  endorses  them  as  to  four  feeble,  crippled  powers,  and  omits  the 
very  country  that  is  now  committing  outrages  upon  our  flag  and  our 
shipping.  I  had  introduced  a  bill,  general  in  its  provisions,  applicable 
to  England,  France,  Spain,  Mexico,  Central  America,  South  America — 
everywhere  where  there  were  flagrant  violations  upon  our  flag  under 
circumstances  admitting  of  no  delay. 

Mr.  Mason.  Will  the  Senator  allow  me  to  interrupt  him  for  a 
moment. 

Mr.  Douglas.  Certainly,  with  great  p^asure. 

Mr.  Mason.  Has  the  Senator  remarked  the  difference  between  the 
causes  of  quarrel  existing  between  Great  Britain  and  the  United  States, 
and  those  existing  between  these  Republics  of  Central  America  and 
Mexico,  and  the  United  States.  Great  Britain  has  certainly  commit- 


7 


ted,  or  those  in  command  of  her  armed  vessels  have  committed, 
high  offenses  against  this  country ;  hut  we  are  utterly  uninformed 
whether  those  are  avowed  or  disavowed,  whether  reparation  will  he 
extended  or  refused  on  the  part  of  that  government.  The  matter  is 
open  for  explanation  and  renunciation.  That  is  our  position  with 
England.  What  is  our  relation  with  Mexico  ?  What  is  our  relation 
with  Nicaragua,  and  those  States  in  that  neighborhood  ?  Our  people 
are  taken  by  the  Government  forces  within  the  territory  of  Mexico 
and  imprisoned,  and  are  imprisoned  at  this  hour.  At  Tampico,  one  of 
her  sea  ports,  from  the  decrepitude  of  the  government,  it  is  unable  to 
protect  our  people  when  they  go  there.  They  have  been  seized  and  im¬ 
prisoned  within  the  last  sixty  days,  and  stripped  of  their  property,  which 
has  been  confiscated,  with  a  knowledge  that  the  Government  of  Mexico 
is  too  feeble  to  extend  redress.  I  say  the  measure  reported  by  the 
committee  is  not  to  make  war  upon  Mexico.  It  is  only  to  do  for  Mex¬ 
ico  what  Mexico  is  bound  to  do  herself.  That  is  the  whole  of  it.  I 
submit  to  the  honorable  Senator,  as  I  cheerfully  submit  to  the  country, 
whether  the  one  bill  is  not  properly  authorized  in  morals  towards 
those  Governments  of  Central  America  and  Mexico,  when  if  it  were 
done  in  like  manner  toward  England,  for  the  purpose  of  plunging  us 
into  war,  it  would  be  an  offense  unpardonable  in  the  legislative  power, 
in  my  judgment. 

Mr.  Douglas.  I  repeat  that  I  agree  with  the  Senator  from  Vir¬ 
ginia,  that  there  was  abundant  cause  for  the  application  of  the  power 
which  I  proposed  to  confer,  with  reference  to  Mexico,  Nicaragua,  Costa 
Rica,  and  New  Grenada.  I  agree,  also,  that  the  conferring  of  that 
power  was  not  a  war  power,  but  a  peace  measure.  The  Senator  does 
not  consider  it  a  war  power ;  I  do  not  consider  it  a  war  power.  If  it  is 
not  a  war  power  with  reference  to  them,  it  is  not  a  war  power  when 
applied  to  other  countries.  Hence  the  very  fact  that  he  acknowledges 
that  it  is  not  a  war  power  when  applied  to  the  countries  to  which  he 
proposes  to  apply  it,  is  an  admission  that  it  would  not  be  a  war  power 
if  it  were  made  applicable  to  England,  unless  we  are  to  understand 
that  we  are  to  apply  one  rule  to  a  weak  power,  and  another  to  a  strong 
power.  I  do  not  understand  that  to  be  the  rule.  The  measure  that 
I  have  proposed  with  reference  to  these  difficulties,  has  been  a  measure 
of  peace.  I  intended  the  one  which  I  brought  forward,  for  which  the 
Senator  from  Virginia  has  introduced  a  substitute,  adopting  the  same 
measure  but  limiting  its  application,  as  a  peace  measure.  It  ought  to 
exist  in  time  of  peace.  It  only  confers  on  the  President  of  the  United 
States,  outside  of  the  limits  of  the  Republic,  that  power  which  the 
Chief  Magistrate  of  every  other  nation  does  already  possess.  It  is 
only  putting  our  Executive,  in  the  vindication  of  the  rights  of  Ameri¬ 
can  citizens  abroad,  on  an  equality  with  the  Chief  Magistrate  of  every 
other  nation  on  earth.  If  it  is  not  a  dangerous  power  in  the  hands  of 
all  the  kings,  all  the  prime  ministers,  all  the  presidents  of  republics 
lies  outside  of  the  United  States,  I  apprehend  that  it  cannot  be  deemed 
a  very  dangerous  one  to  be  exercised  by  the  President  of  the  United 
States  on  other  people,  and  not  upon  our  own  citizens  abroad. 

Then,  sir,  what  is  the  point  of  complaint  ?  The  point  at  issue  is 


f 


8 


that  Great  Britain  is  searching  our  vessels.  The  Committee  on  Foreign 
Relations  agreed  unanimously,  that  she  had  no  right  to  do  it ;  that  the 
practice  of  the  right  of  search  was  a  belligerent  right ;  that  it  was  an 
invasion  of  our  sovereign  rights ;  that  we  could  never  submit  to  it, 
and  would  never  submit  to  it.  Having  resolved  that  far,  the  commit¬ 
tee  being  unanimous  to  that  extent,  there  was  a  difference  of  opinion 
as  to  how  much  further  we  should  go.  One  side  resolved  that  we  will 
not  submit  to  it ;  the  other  side  so  resolved,  with  a  provision  that  if 
it  should  be  done  again  we  would  repel  it.  That  is  all  there  is  in  the 
case.  If  it  is  right  to  resolve  not  to  submit  to  it,  it  is  a  point  of  honor 
to  repel  the  aggression  when  it  is  repeated.  I  ask  if  we  are  not  dis¬ 
graced,  as  a  nation,  if,  after  resolving  that  it  is  a  belligerent  act — that 
it  is  an  infraction  of  our  sovereignty — that  we  will  never  submit  to  it, 
we  then  refuse  to  authorize  the  President  to  repel  the  insult  if  it  be 
repeated  ?  That  is  the  whole  point.  I  desire,  instead  of  bringing  for¬ 
ward  a  substitute  for  the  Senator’s  resolutions,  to  give  the  President 
power  and  authority  to  carry  out  the  assertion  which  the  Senator  from 
Virginia,  as  chairman  of  the  Committee  on  Foreign  Relations,  has 
made. 

Mr.  Collamer.  I  wish  to  ask  the  Senator  a  question,  if  he  will 
allow  me. 

Mr.  Douglas.  Certainly. 

Mr.  Collamer.  I  wish  to  ask  where  it  is  declared,  either  by  the 
committee  or  the  Senate,  to  be  a  belligerent  act  ? 

Mr.  Douglas.  The  report  of  the  Committee  on  Foreign  Relations  so 
declares  it,  I  think. 

Mr.  Collamer.  That  report  has  been  presented  to  the  Senate,  but 
it  has  never  been  acted  upon  as  yet.  I  wish  to  ask  the  Senator  one 
more  question  :  whether  he  regards  the  word  “  belligerent”  as  apply- 
t6  a  nation,  and  whether  a  belligerent  act  is  a  national  act  ?  If  this  is 
a  belligerent  act,  and  is  a  national  act,  we  should  declare  war. 

Mr.  Douglas.  It  does  not  follow,  that  for  every  belligerent  act  we 
shall  declare  war.  The  Senator  from  Virginia,  in  his  report  as  chairman 
of  the  Committee  on  Foreign  Relations,  quoted  Chief  J  ustice  Marshall  to 
show  that  the  practice  of  the  right  of  search  was  a  belligerent  act.  All 
belligerent  acts  do  not  necessarily  produce  war.  You  may  repel  them ; 
you  may  grant  letters  of  marque  and  reprisal — there  are  various  remedies 
short  of  war  for  repelling  and  redressing  belligerent  acts.  It  does  not 
follow  by  any  means,  when  one  nation  perpetrates  a  violation  of  right 
against  another,  which  of  itself  is  a  belligerent  act,  that  war  is  the 
inevitable  consequence,  any  more  than  it  follows  when  one  gentleman 
says  something  offensive  to  another  that  a  peremptory  challenge  is  a 
necessary  result.  A  demand  for  explanation  may  be  necessary.  There 
are  preludes  to  a  declaration.  So  it  is  between  nations.  There  may  be  a 
belligerent  act  performed.  It  leads  to  negotiation,  to  remonstrance. 
When  these  means  fail,  then  the  question  comes  whether  our  rights  or 
honor  be  involved  to  such  an  extent  as  to  make  it  imperative  to  go  to 


c 


9 


war,  as  a  final  result.  If  this  violation  of  the  freedom  of  the  seas 
were  a  new  thing — if  the  assertion  of  the  right  to  search  American 
vessels  were  now  made  for  the  first  or  even  the  second  time,  we  might 
not,  although  treating  it  as  a  belligerent  act,  deem  it  necessary  to  go 
to  war.  But  when  the  question  has  gone  through  half  a  century  of 
dispute — when  it  has  reached  such  a  point  that  we  refuse  to  discuss 
the  question  of  right  any  further — when  we  have  asserted  that  the 
argument  is  exhausted,  and  that  the  only  thing  left  is  to  resort  to  re¬ 
sistance,  if  it  be  persevered  in  any  further,  it  will  not  do  for  us,  in  the 
face  of  these  outrages,  repeated  each  day,  to  be  silent  with  regard  to 
them,  and  proceed  to  legislate  for  the  punishment  of  Mexico,  Nicar¬ 
agua,  and  other  weak  and  feeble  powers  at  a  distance.  The  bill  re¬ 
ported  by  the  Senator  from  Virginia,  would  be  right  if  it  were  brought 
forward  at  a  time  when  the  aggravation  came  from  those  countries 
and  not  from  England.  I  will  vote  for  it.  But  to  pass  that  by  itself, 
and  remain  silent  with  regard  to  these  British  outrages,  is  to  confess 
to  the  world  that  we  are  afraid  of  Great  Britain,  but  we  will  maintain 
our  courage  by  punishing  some  smaller,  feebler,  weaker  power. 

I  do  not  bring  forward  the  proposition  to  revive  the  act  of  the  3d 
of  March,  1839,  as  a  substitute  for  the  bill  reported  by  the  Senator 
from  Virginia,  as  lie  imagines.  On  the  contrary,  the  two  bills  ought 
to  go  together.  The  one  which  I  bring  forward  is  applicable  to  Eng¬ 
land,  and  to  her  alone.  It  covers  the  present  quarrel  between  us  and 
England — not  as  a  war  measure,  but  as  a  peace  measure.  The  only 
change  that  I  make  between  that  act  as  I  bring  it  forward  now,  and 
as  it  was  in  the  shape  in  which  it  originally  passed,  is  to  strike  out 
the  words  “territory  in  dispute,”  and  insert,  “the  claim  of  the  right 
of  search.”  Then  the  two  cases  are  parallel,  and  the  provision  is  as 
applicable  to  one  as  it  is  to  the  other. 

Sir,  there  was  one  member  of  this  body  who,  when  the  measure  was 
brought  in  in  1839,  was  disposed  to  treat  it  as  an  act  of  war,  until  the 
great  minds  of  the  Senate,  the  patriots  of  that  day,  came  forward  and  said 
no,  Great  Britain  is  performing  a  belligerent  act;  we  must  resist  it  at 
all  hazards ;  if  she  perseveres  in  the  wrong,  then  the  consequences  be 
on  her  head  for  having  persevered  in  the  wrong.  Hence  you  find  that 
Clay,  Calhoun,  Webster,  Buchanan,  and  the  leaders  of  the  Senate  of 
all  parties  of  that  day,  united  with  entire  unanimity  in  conferring  upon 
President  Van  Buren  the  power  to  resist  it.  One  man  only  hesitated. 
A  distinguished  and  respected  Senator  from  New  Jersey,  made  the  very 
point  that  is  now  being  made,  as  to  its  being  an  act  of  war;  but  a 
distinguished  Senator  from  Mississippi  appealed  to  him,  after  a  pre¬ 
liminary  vote  had  been  taken,  and  it  was  ascertained  that  the  Senate 
were  unanimous,  with  one  exception,  not  to  persevere  in  his  opposition, 
but  allow  the  Senate  to  stand  unanimous  in  the  assertion  of  a  principle 
upon  which  all  agreed,  and  Mr.  Southard,  in  deference  to  the  opinion 
of  the  remainder  of  the  Senate,  waived  his  objections,  and  allowed  the 
bill  to  pass  by  a  unanimous  vote.  Sir,  did  it  turn  out  to  be  a  measure 
of  war,  then?  On  the  contrary,  it  resulted  in  peace,  and  you  were 
saved  from  a  war  with  Great  Britain  on  the  northeastern  boundary 
question,  by  the  unanimity  of  Congress  at  that  time  in  preparing  to 


10 


repel  the  assault.  The  vote  in  the  Senate  was  unanimous,  and  in  the 
House  of  Representatives  it  was  one  hundred  and  ninty-seven  against 
six.  This  unanimity  among  the  American  people,  as  manifested  by 
their  representatives,  saved  the  two  countries  from  war,  preserved  peace 
between  England  and  the  United  States  upon  that  question.  If  the 
Senate  had  been  nearly  equally  divided  in  1839,  if  there  had  been  but 
half-a-dozen  majority  for  the  passage  of  the  measure,  if  the  vote  had 
been  nearly  divided  in  the  House  of  Representatives,  England  would 
have  taken  courage  from  the  divisions  in  our  own  councils,  she  would 
have  pressed  her  claim  to  a  point  that  would  have  been  utterly  inad¬ 
missible  and  incompatible  with  our  honor,  and  war  would  have  been 
the  inevitable  consequence. 

I  tell  you,  sir,  the  true  peace  measure  is  that  which  resents  the  in¬ 
sult  and  redresses  the  wrong  promptly  upon  the  spot,  with  a  una¬ 
nimity  that  shows  the  nation  cannot  be  divided. 

Unanimity  now,  prompt  action,  and  determined  resistance  to  this 
claim  of  the  right  of  search  is  the  best  peace  measure,  and  the  only 
peace  measure,  to  which  you  can  resort.  You  have  said  that  this  na¬ 
tion  will  not  submit  to  this  right  of  search ;  every  department  of  this 
Government  has  repeated  it,  all  political  parties  unite  in,  the  sentiment; 
there  is  one  point  on  which  the  American  people  are  united,  and  on 
which  they  have  stood  for  half  a  century.  It  is  violated  now.  The 
question  is  whether  we  shall  present  the  same  unanimity  in  resistance 
that  we  do  in  denying  the  right  to  commit  the  outrage.  Unanimity 
on  our  part,  unanimity  in  our  councils,  firm  resolve,  but  kind  and 
respectful  words  will  preserve  peace.  Sir,  I  desire  peace.  I  would 
lament  a  war  with  England,  or  with  any  other  power,  as  much  as  any 
other  man  in  the  Senate.  Nor  do  I  think  that  my  constituents  desire 
war,  but  I  believe  that  the  true  way  to  prevent  it,  is  to  be  prepared  to 
resist  aggression  the  moment  it  is  made.  What  is  the  argument  we 
hear  used  to  day  The  Senator  from  South  Carolina,  (Mr.  Hammond,) 
who  knows  that  I  have  for  him  the  highest  respect,  portrays  to  us  our 
weak,  feeble,  and  defenseless  condition,  our  thousands  of  miles  of  coast, 
our  small  navy,  our  limited  resources,  to  show  that  we  are  not  ready 
for  a  war  now.  Sir,  let  Great  Britain  believe  that  picture,  and  she 
will  be  ready  now  for  a  war  with  us. 

Mr.  Hammond.  I  did  not  speak  about  war  to-day.  The  measure 
proposed  by  the  Naval  Committee  was  one  recommended  before  this 
speck  of  war  arose  upon  the  horizon,  and  it  was  a  necessary  peace 
measure.  Six  out  of  the  seven  members  of  the  Naval  Committee 
thought  that,  as  a  peace  measure,  we  should  construct  double  the 
amount  of  vessels  that  it  is  proposed  to  build  ;  but  I  studiously  avoided 
bringing  in  this  question  of  war  in  portrayiug  our  resources  to-day.  I 
stated  distinctly,  that  if  I  was  advocating  this  measure  as  a  war  measure, 
I  should  think  it  a  very  meagre  one  ;  and  I  regret  that  this  debate, 
which  is  on  a  uecessary  peace  measure,  has  extended  into  the  question 
of  war  which  would  be  much  more  appropriate  on  two  or  three  measures 
that  are  to  come  up.  I  would  be  glad  if  Senators  would  avoid  the 
question  of  war  with  England,  and  let  us  take  a  vote  upon  this  measure 
which,  whether  we  have  war  or  peace,  in  my  opinion,  should  pass. 


11 


Mr.  Douglas.  I  am  very  grateful  to  the  Senator  from  South  Caro¬ 
lina,  for  the  correction  that  he  has  made.  I  would  not  misrepresent 
him,  and  I  am  sorry  to  have  misapprehended  him.  I  only  say  that  I 
concur  fully  with  him,  that  the  measure  which  he  advocated  is  a  wise 
and  judicious  one,  as  a  peace  measure,  but  I  think  the  necessity  for  it 
is  more  imperative  in  consequence  of  the  little  specks  of  war  that  we 
see  upon  the  horizon.  I  have  reason  to  suppose  so,  from  the  fact  that 
no  Senator  can  rise  to  discuss  it  without  referring  to  the  possibility  or 
probability  of  war  with  England.  But,  sir,  I  cannot  join  writh  him  in 
the  expression  of  surprise  or  regret,  that  the  discussion  of  the  possibili¬ 
ties  of  war  or  of  collision  with  England,  should  have  grown  up  upon 
the  discussion  of  the  measure.  He  says  it  will  all  be  repeated  again. 
Very  true;  but  if  the  Senators  who  have  alluded  to  the  English  ques¬ 
tion  had  let  it  come  up  first,  as  the  Senator  from  Virginia  himself 
knows  I  desired  to  have  it,  and  had  let  it  be  decided,  then  when  the 
navy  bill  came  up  we  should  know  whether  it  was  necessary  to  make 
provision  in  the  navy  bill  for  the  contingencies  that  might  be  presented 
by  this  English  difficulty.  If  we  could  have  been  allowed  to  have 
taken  up  that  question,  and  discussed  the  bill  reported  by  the  Com¬ 
mittee  on  Foreign  Relations,  and  the  bill  that  I  introduced,  for  which 
the  Committee  reported  theirs  as  a  substitute,  and  the  subsequent  bill 
that  I  introduced  or  agreed  upon  any  measure  to  authorize  the  Presi¬ 
dent  to  resist  the  British  pretension  of  a  right  of  search  and  visitation, 
then  the  Senate  with  entire  unanimity  would  have  joined  in  the  sup¬ 
port  of  whatever  was  necessary  to  carry  it  out ;  then  the  recommenda¬ 
tion  of  the  Committee  on  Naval  Affairs  would  have  met  with  no  oppo¬ 
sition  ;  Senators  who  oppose  it  now,  would  have  supported  it  then.  I 
desired  that  question  to  come  up  first.  I  think  we  ought  to  lay  aside 
the  navy  bill  now;  we  ought  to  refuse  to  take  up  the  army  bill  until 
we  decide  whether  or  not  we  are  going  to  sustain  the  President  in  re¬ 
sisting  the  practice  of  the  right  of  search.  If  we  are  going  to  sustain 
him  on  that  point,  we  must  give  him  the  means,  trust  him,  rally  around 
him,  strengthen  his  hands,  support  him  in  protecting  our  flag,  and 
maintaining  the  honor  of  the  country.  If,  on  the  contrary,  we  are 
not  to  do  that,  let  us  say  no  more  about  British  aggressions,  no  more 
about  the  right  of  search,  ho  more  in  regard  to  her  shooting  across  the 
bows  of  our  vessels.  Let  us  be  silent  on  all  these  points,  and  recognize 
them  as  right,  unless  we  are  going  to  resist  them ;  and  if  we  are  to 
resist  them,  now  is  the  time.  Present  unanimity  now,  a  unanimous 
vote,  as  you  did  in  1839;  give  the  means  to  the  President,  and  you 
will  have  no  more  war,  aud  no  repetition  of  the  right  of  search.  Our 
divisions  are  the  only  encouragement  that  Great  Britain  has.  Our 
vacillation,  our  hesitation,  our  nervousness  about  the  defenseless  con¬ 
dition  of  our  coasts  and  of  our  cities  are  the  sources  of  encouragement 
to  England. 

Sir,  I  repel  the  idea  that  the  American  coast  is  so  defenseless  as 
represented.  I  have  passed  round  a  great  portion  of  the  British  coast, 
and  I  undertake  to  assert  that  the  American  coast  is  in  a  better  con¬ 
dition  of  defense  than  that  of  Great  Britain.  New  York  is  better  de¬ 
fended  than  Liverpool  or  London  to-day.  It  is  easier  for  a  fleet  to- 


12 


enter  the  harbor  of  Liverpool  or  London  than  New  York.  There  are 
not  as  many  obstacles  in  the  way  in  the  British  cities  as  in  the  Ameri¬ 
can.  It  is  possible  that  a  steam  fleet  might  run  by  the  fortifications 
into  either.  It  is  not  probable  that  it  would  ever  escape  from  there 
if  it  did  :  but  it  is  possible  that  it  might  effect  its  escape.  But,  sir,  I 
do  not  believe  that  our  coast  is  more  exposed  than  hers,  and  I  do  not 
believe  our  commerce  is  more  exposed  than  hers.  I  do  not  believe 
England  is  any  better  prepared  for  war  with  us  than  we  are  with  her. 
If  she  has  a  larger  navy,  she  has  a  more  exposed  interest  to  protect 
by  that  navy.  She  has  her  troubles  in  India;  she  has  them  at 
the  Cape;  she  has  them  all  over  the  world;  and  her  navy  is  divided, 
and  her  army  divided  to  protect  them  in  those  detached  places,  on 
every  continent  and  every  island  of  the  globe.  Sir,  the  extent  of  her 
power,  spreading  all  around  the  globe,  is  one  of  the  greatest  sources 
of  her  weakness;  and  the  other  fact  that  she  is  a  commercial  nation, 
and  we  are  an  agricultural  people,  shows  that  she  may  be  ruined,  and 
her  citizens  starved,  while  we,  although  at  war  abroad,  are  happy  and 
prosperous  at  home. 

Besides,  sir,  as  has  been  intimated  by  the  Senator  from  Massachu¬ 
setts,  England  has  given  pledges  for  her  good  behavior  on  this  conti¬ 
nent.  She  is  bound  over  to  keep  the  peace.  She  has  large  posses¬ 
sions  upon  this  continent,  of  which  she  could  be  deprived  in  ninety 
days  after  war  existed  ;  and  she  knows  that  the  moment  she  eugagesin 
war  with  us  that  moment  her  power  upon  the  American  continent 
and  upon  the  adjacent  islands  ceases  to  exist.  While  I  am  opposed 
to  war — while  I  have  no  idea  of  any  breach  of  the  peace  with  Eng¬ 
land,  yet  I  confess  to  you,  sir,  if  war  should  come  by  her  act  and  not 
ours — by  her  invasion  of  our  right  and  our  vindication  of  the  same,  I 
would  administer  to  every  citizen  and  every  child  Hannibal’s  oath  of 
eternal  hostility,  as  long  as  the  English  flag  waved,  or  their  govern¬ 
ment  claimed  a  foot  of  land  upon  the  American  continent  or  the  adja- 
cant  islands.  Sir,  I  would  make  it  a  war  that  would  settle  our  dis¬ 
putes  forever,  not  only  of  the  right  of  search  upon  the  seas,  but  the 
right  to  tread  with  a  hostile  foot  upon  the  soil  of  the  American  conti¬ 
nent  or  its  appendages.  England  sees  that,  these  consequences  would 
result.  Her  statesmen  understand  these  results  as  well  we,  and  much 
better.  Her  statesmen  have  more  respect  for  us  in  this  particular  than 
we  have  for  ourselves.  They  will  never  push  this  question  to  the 
point  of  war.  They  will  look  you  in  the  eye,  march  to  you  steadily, 
as  long  as  they  find  it  is  prudent.  If  you  cast  the  eye  down  she  will 
rush  upon  you.  If  you  look  her  in  the  eye  steadily,  she  will  shake 
hands  with  you  as  friends,  and  have  respect  for  you. 

Mr.  Hammond.  Suppose  she  does  not  ? 

Mr.  Douglas.  Suppose  she  does  not,  my  friend  from  South  Caro¬ 
lina  asks  me.  If  she  does  not,  then  we  will  appeal  to  the  God  of  bat¬ 
tles — we  will  arouse  the  patriotism  of  the  American  nation — we  will 
blot  out  all  distinctions  of  party,  the  voice  of  faction  will  be  hushed, 
the  American  people  will  be  a  unit,  none  but  the  voice  of  patriotism 


13 


will  be  beard,  and  from  tbe  North  and  the  South,  from  the  East  and 
the  West,  we  will  come  up  as  a  band  of  brothers,  animated  by  a  com¬ 
mon  spirit  and  a  common  patriotism,  as  were  our  fathers  of  the  Revo¬ 
lution,  to  repel  the  foreign  enemy,  and  afterwards  differ  as  we  please, 
and  discuss  at  our  leisure  matters  of  domestic  dispute.  Sir,  I  am  wil¬ 
ling  to  suppose  the  case  which  is  suggested  by  the  Senator  ffom  South 
Carolina  :  Suppose  England  does  not  respect  our  rights?  To  fight 
her  now - 

Mr.  Hammond.  I  said,  suppose  England  would  not  submit  to  be 
bullied. 

Mr.  Douglas.  Who  proposes  to  bully  England  ? 

Mr.  Hammond.  I  understood  the  Senator  to  say,  that  if  we  looked 
down,  she  would  rush  on  us ;  but  if  we  looked  up,  she  would  give 
way.  I  consider  that  bullying. 

Mr.  Douglas.  Precisely;  that  is  the  case  of  a  bully  always.  He 
will  fix  his  eye  on  his  antagonist  and  see  if  it  is  steady.  If  it  is  not, 
he  will  approach  a  little  nearer.  If  it  is,  he  stops ;  but,  if  his  eye 
sinks,  he  rushes  on  him — and  that  is  the  parallel  in  which  I  put  Eng¬ 
land,  playing  the  bully  with  us.  The  question  is,  whether  we  will  look 
her  steadily  in  the  eye,  and  maintain  our  rights  against  her  aggressions. 
We  do  not  wish  to  bully  England.  She  is  resisting  no  claim  of  ours, 
She  sets  up  the  claim  to  search  our  vessels,  stop  them  on  the  high  seas, 
invade  our  rights,  and  wTe  say  to  her  that  we  will  not  submit  to  that 
aggression.  I  would  ask  to  have  the  United  States  act  upon  the  de¬ 
fensive  in  all  things — make  no  threat,  indulge  in  no  bullying,  but  sim¬ 
ply  assert  our  right,  then  maintain  the  assertion  with  whatever  power 
may  be  necessary,  and  the  God  of  our  fathers  may  have  imparted  to 
us  for  maintaining  it — that  is  all.  I  believe  that  is  the  true  course  to 
peace.  I  repeat  that,  if  war  with  England  comes,  it  will  result  from 
our  vascillation,  our  division,  our  hesitation,  our  apprehensions  lest  we 
might  be  whipped  in  the  fight.  Perhaps  we  might.  I  do  not  believe 
it.  I  believe  the  moment  England  declares  war  against  the  United 
States,  the  prestige  of  her  power  is  gone.  It  will  unite  our  own  peo¬ 
ple;  it  will  give  us  the  sympathy  of  the  world  ;  it  will  destroy  her 
commerce  and  her  manufactures,  while  it  will  extend  our  own.  It  will 
sink  her  to  a  second  rate  power  upon  the  face  of  the  globe,  and  leave 
us  without  a  rival  who  can  dispute  our  supremacy.  We  shall,  how¬ 
ever,  come  to  that  point  early  through  the  paths  of  peace.  Such  is 
the  tendency  of  things  now.  I  would  rather  approach  it  by  peaceable, 
quiet  means,  by  the  arts  and  sciences,  by  agriculture,  by  commerce, 
by  immigration,  by  natural  growth  and  expansion,  than  by  warfare. 
But  if  England  is  impatient  of  our  rising  power,  if  she  desires  to 
hasten  it,  and  should  force  war  upon  us,  she  will  seal  her  doom  now ; 
whereas,  Providence  might  extend  to  her,  if  not  a  pardon,  at  least  a 
reprieve,  for  a  few  short  years  to  come. 

I  repeat,  again,  that  I  am  for  peace  and  not  for  war.  I  have  proposed 
no  proposition  except  with  a  view  to  peace.  I  believe  that  the  power 


* 


u 


I  desire  to  entrust  in  the  hands  of  the  President  is  advisable  and  neces¬ 
sary  for  peace,  and  the  friends  of  peace  should  rally  as  a  unit  and  give 
him  that  power.  I  am  willing  to  trust  him  with  the  very  power,  in 
the  precise  terms,  and  for  the  same  object,  for  wrhi6h  he  and  his  com¬ 
patriots  in  1839  entrusted  with  President  Van  Buren. 

ft  </:  ■■  r.  -  ■  j  ■  in*;  -  ■ur<<  ;  r,ul  '■  .»•') 


O  '  •  j*  >  .  •'  'i  l  (g‘  J.t  . *  \  \  T'  •  \  *  •  •  0 


/ 


f 


A 


,  4. 


« 


* 


> 


i 


<* 


/ 


•‘4. 


'  / 


# 


. 


* 


4 


M  • 


/ 


<. 


